[c.a.m]

Here's one from the same shoot.

Considering that the bird occupied only about 5% of the original frame, I'd say that this is a decent result after processing. The lighting conditions were not optimal, but your B&W version captures some feather detail and the important characteristic beak profile.

- Craig

[c.a.m]

wildlife photographers try to shoot at eye level (from a high point for birds), this gives better photos.

Doesn't it depend on the circumstance? I don't think the OP had a tall ladder at the time.

- Craig

[jbinpg]

The flat lighting killed this shot. High ISO didn't help. Re. offering the hawk a mouse: I tried to bring in a Red-tailed Hawk such as yours many years ago with a trapped rat. The hawk just stayed on its perch and watched the rat disappear into the weeds. So I do not think that strategy would work.

[robgski]

but usually wildlife photographers try to shoot at eye level

It's even nicer if you can get one to hold still on a fencepost 4 meters away

[Lowell Goudge]

I chose f/8 for the depth of field, but I suppose I felt the desire for higher ISO to capture detail. Now that I think about your comments, however, that probably wasn't necessary. Next time I go out, I will try lowering my ISO significantly. I'm guessing, in addition, that cropping so much really damages the resolution.

What I do, with my K5 and K1 is shoot Tav with spot metering, at your focal length, I would suggest 1/400 to 1/500, and set the aperture to Between F4 to F5.6, let ISO go where it wants to.

It may be that I have to save my money and, in the end, purchase a 150-450 for birding purposes.

Now you are heading down the slippery slope LBA at its best

And I do like this statement: "except for bright daylight, conditions are never ideal." I should print that out and hang it up someplace.

Glad you like it

[biz-engineer]

Doesn't it depend on the circumstance? I don't think the OP had a tall ladder at the time.

Sometimes just staying in the car and shooting at eye level from the window does the trick.

[jawats]

Not quite studio, but usually wildlife photographers try to shoot at eye level (from a high point for birds), this gives better photos.

This makes sense - the light looking down, rather than backlit, probably works better. My shots are all ground-based, looking up, for this hawk.

---------- Post added 10-30-21 at 12:30 PM ----------

Considering that the bird occupied only about 5% of the original frame, I'd say that this is a decent result after processing. The lighting conditions were not optimal, but your B&W version captures some feather detail and the important characteristic beak profile.

- Craig

Thank you. So, in some ways, it comes down to adjusting expectations for a 280mm (200mm with 1.4x TC) lens at some distance from the bird.

[Bob 256]

Not a bad shot but look at your histogram. The left side has a long tail and then nothing. It should bump up against the left boundary and begin there - a sure sign of overexposure. I would go for less exposure (lower ISO) which should help the noise (not that bad considering) and use the sensor's ability to pull details out of anything that is in the shadows. With a bit of post processing, what you have is well within what I would expect for the long end of that lens with a X1.4 teleconverter, and with a high ISO like 3200. Room for improvement but pretty good.

[jawats]

Sometimes just staying in the car and shooting at eye level from the window does the trick.

Agreed. This particular bird was 25' up, or so. I've definitely had better results in the past from ground-level birds.

---------- Post added 10-30-21 at 12:49 PM ----------

Doesn't it depend on the circumstance? I don't think the OP had a tall ladder at the time.

- Craig

Ya know, I keep the 15' ladder strapped to my back for these occasions. I'm not sure why I blanked on that when I took this. :P

---------- Post added 10-30-21 at 12:54 PM ----------

Not a bad shot but look at your histogram. The left side has a long tail and then nothing. It should bump up against the left boundary and begin there - a sure sign of overexposure. I would go for less exposure (lower ISO) which should help the noise (not that bad considering) and use the sensor's ability to pull details out of anything that is in the shadows. With a bit of post processing, what you have is well within what I would expect for the long end of that lens with a X1.4 teleconverter, and with a high ISO like 3200. Room for improvement but pretty good.

Overexposure seems to be the general consensus from you experienced types. Thank you, Bob, and others who chimed in, who are helping me improve my photography skills.

[c.a.m]

Ya know, I keep the 15' ladder strapped to my back for these occasions. I'm not sure why I blanked on that when I took this. :P

You were probably too excited about the bird to remember to extend the ladder. That happens to me a lot when I'm out in the woods looking for mushroom shots.

- Craig

[jawats]

You were probably too excited about the bird to remember to extend the ladder. That happens to me a lot when I'm out in the woods looking for mushroom shots.

- Craig

*snaps fingers*

This is it, exactly. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[35mmfilmfan]

You were probably too excited about the bird to remember to extend the ladder. That happens to me a lot when I'm out in the woods looking for mushroom shots.

- Craig

But doesn't the Caterpillar object ?

[Des]

in some ways, it comes down to adjusting expectations for a 280mm (200mm with 1.4x TC) lens at some distance from the bird.

Definitely. And with a FF sensor, with lower pixel density than a KP or K-3iii. Even on an APS-C camera, 300mm is generally just the starting point for photographing birds in the wild, unless you can get unusually close. But that's just part of the trade-off. Carrying around a 2kg lens can detract from the experience too. So it's worth exploring how to get better results with what you have.

I agree with what others have said about the overexposure. For birding I usually use centre-weighted or spot metering, but in this situation it would only have exacerbated the over-exposure, because it would have weighted the exposure for the bird rather than the sky. Probably better to use matrix metering and bring up the exposure of the bird in post. Or (although it sound counter-intuitive) use fill flash. If you weren't too far away, and you had a reasonably powerful flash with HSS, it would add a bit of light to the bird and give more colour and detail. This would help with contrast, which is lacking in this sort of ambient light.

I also agree that TAv is Pentax's gift to bird photography (some would say the same about Hyper-program mode), because you often need to adjust both aperture and shutter speed. You can cap the ISO band at 1600 or 3200, where the K-1 should still be generally very good. One thing I love about the KP is the ability to set the ISO with the third wheel - I think you can do this with the K-1 too? So you have all three settings at your fingertips.

You can do a bit in post, especially with low ISO. This one was in similar flat light, with the humble K-S2 and DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8 at 260mm, f8, 1/400th, 100 ISO. RAW file converted with no corrections.


After cropping and processing in DxO PL5 and Nik Color Efex Pro.


Still not great, but OK. The low ISO offered good scope for improving contrast. It's worth trying out the Nik Collection if you haven't already done so (it works as a plugin for LR). The free Google version is still available if you don't want to pay for the DxO version (there's not much difference between them). I find that some of the filters in Color Efex do things that are hard to replicate in PL, particularly Detail Extractor, the contrast filters (e.g. Tonal Contrast, Pro Contrast), Brilliance/Warmth and Darken/Lighten Center.

[jawats]

It's even nicer if you can get one to hold still on a fencepost 4 meters away

Stuffed and mounted, or animatronic?

[Lowell Goudge]

The K1 should be able to do a lot more than 1600 iso.

It is about the same sensor capability as the K5

Here is a crop out of my K5. Shot with a sigma APO70-200/2.8EX and 2X TC. I am a little “liberal” with where I let the iso go. This was at ISO 8000